OK, the site is waiting there for review. And, on a quick glimpse, unless that material is plagiarized elsewhere from the internet (which I don't really suspect, but didn't check either -- and an editor should always check before listing) I think it's a good candidate for listing (somewhere). But ... I think you've made a taxonomic mistake in submitting, which may be most easily relieved by a resubmit.
Obviously, any content can be categorized by medium or subject. Our usual approach is to categorize by subject unless the subject is very very broad -- that is, a collection of biographies of authors would be found under literature/authors, not reference/biography. I would suggest that you check out our Recreational Collecting categories for a more specific topic that closely fits the scope of your collection, and submit there. This may eliminate one of the "wait for review" stages. (It is even conceivable, although unlikely, that the site will be listed both places. And two submittals of a content-rich site (which IMO this one is) wouldn't be considered spam.
Assuming (as I say) originality, there are still some issues that might trip up an unwary editor. The Amazon affiliate links are NOT an issue. This is, IMO, the kind of use of affiliate links that Amazon originally envisioned -- that is, a useful adjunct to an informative site; they are relevant and not objectionably prominent. We can ignore them evein if we didn't think them useful.
Clearly the site is there to promote your business -- which might not be listable separately (we're hesitant to list e-bay shops since in that topic e-bay's index is so much better than anything we could do, and it is of no value to surfers for us to waste time trying to compete with them.) But again, we'd list a site even if it were posted on Geocities and had off-topic advertisements, and it shouldn't be a problem for us to list an informative site with on-topic advertisements.
But I'd say: do resubmit once in the other topic, and do check back in six months for a status. There's a slightly higher chance than usual (a few percent, maybe, I'd guess) that the site might be inappropriately deleted -- and it looks like one we may not want to miss.
